Development of a Methodology for the Evaluation of
Active Safety using the Example of Preventive
Pedestrian Protection
vorgelegt von
Dipl.-Ing.
Thomas Helmer
aus M¨
unchen
von der Fakult¨
at V – Verkehrs- und Maschinensysteme
der Technischen Universit¨
at Berlin
zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades
Doktor der Ingenieurwissenschaften
– Dr.-Ing. –
genehmigte Dissertation
Promotionssauschuss:
Vorsitzender: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rainer Stark
Gutachter: Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Volker Schindler
Gutachter: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Matthias R¨
otting
Gutachter: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Dr.-Ing. E.H. Hans-Hermann Braess
Tag der wissenschaftlichen Aussprache: 11. Dezember 2013.
Berlin 2014
D 83
Preface
First of all, I would like to thank all Professors who supported me during the years I
have been working on this thesis. A very special thanks goes to Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Volker
Schindler, Leiter Fachgebiet Kraftfahrzeuge at Technische Universit¨at Berlin, for supervis-
ing the thesis. His ideas, encouragement, and quiet guidance have been an enormous help.
This PhD thesis has been conducted during my work at the Vehicle Safety Department
of BMW Group in Munich. It is a pleasure for me to thank those who made this thesis
possible. Representative for my supervisors in the last three years I want to thank Mr.
Klaus Kompaß, Vice President Vehicle Safety, for his support. Thanks to his confidence in
me and my work I was given the chance to participate in highly interesting projects, conduct
a research stay abroad, and present the results at various occasions to the international
automotive and scientific community.
I am indebted to my many colleagues who have supported me over the last years. Espe-
cially I want to thank Mr. Adrian Ebner for many stimulating and enriching discussions.
One highlight of our work was a joined research stay at the National Crash Analysis Center
(NCAC) of the George Washington University (GWU). I am grateful for all the help of
Randa Radwan Samaha, MS, Paul Scullion, BS, and Dr. Kennerly Digges, all of them
with GWU, who made this experience possible.
I owe my deepest gratitude to Dr. Werner Huber, who gave me continuous advice as a
scientific mentor as well as supervisor and close colleague. Without his trust, encourage-
ment, and uncompromising support this research would have been much more difficult to
conduct and definitely less fun.
The contribution of Dr. Ronald E. Kates has to be mentioned especially. I feel honored
to be given the chance to learn from him during many discussions and work with him
closely on projects and various publications.
It is an honor for me to thank Prof. Dr.-Ing. Dr.-Ing. E.h. Hans-Hermann Braess for
the time he spent in many mind opening and stimulating discussions. The scientific input
and the possibility to profit from his enormous experience and knowledge in vehicle safety
meant tremendous help during the whole research.
Last but not least I want to thank my family, friends, and especially Maria for their
continuous understanding, motivation, and support during the last years.
iii
Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Safetyinroadtraffic .............................. 1
1.2 Accidentstatistics................................ 4
1.3 Pedestrianprotection.............................. 8
1.4 Objective and methodological approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2 State of scientific and technical knowledge on pre-crash evaluation 13
2.1 Methodological aspects of evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2 System responses available for evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3 Retrospective and prospective evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.4 Data sources for evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.5 Methods of prospective evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.6 Methods of prospective case-by-case analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.7 Methods for modeling different parts of driver, vehicle, and environment . . 31
2.8 Summaryandconclusion............................ 38
3 Approach to integrated safety evaluation: preventive pedestrian protection 41
3.1 Process chain for quantitative evaluation of the pre-crash phase . . . . . . 41
3.2 Reference scenarios for pedestrian accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.3 Functional demonstrator of a preventive pedestrian protection system . . . 46
3.4 Simulation of vehicle-pedestrian interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.5 Evaluation of safety benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.6 Conclusion.................................... 55
4 Methodological findings on research on driver behavior 57
4.1 Objective .................................... 57
4.2 Test design and subject sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.3 Acceptance of the system in specific situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
4.4 Driver behavior in highly critical situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.5 Conclusion.................................... 78
5 Probabilistic modeling of pedestrian injury severity 81
5.1 Objective and research questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
5.2 Data and statistical methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
5.2.1 Study data characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
5.2.2 Coding of target variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
5.2.3 Coding of explanatory variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
5.2.4 Treatment of missing data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
5.2.5 Statistical models and methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
5.2.6 Verifying plausibility of injury probability models . . . . . . . . . . 91
v
Loading more pages...